[linux-elitists] MTA roundup

Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com
Mon Apr 29 19:44:24 PDT 2002

Quoting Andrew L33tsmith (akohlsmith-le@benshaw.com):

> I dunno, I use qmail + vpopmail + about half a dozen very small (and easy to 
> verify) patches + rav's qmail-queue and haven't run across anything screwey 
> happen.

And reasonably lucky people may have the same experience.  Or they may
not.  The point is that public combination testing (let alone regression
testing) is not feasible.

> I don't take all of Dan's postings to heart.  

Well, you seem a reasonable person.  ;->

> I didn't see either of these mentioned in the link.  Is that elsewhere?

Somehow, we're miscommunicating, and I'm not sure exactly how.  You do
know that modern implementations of UFS are called FFS = Fast
FileSystem, right?  So, quoting:

   What types of filesystems are safe for mail?

   Answer: qmail's queue, except for bounce message contents, is crashproof
   on the BSD FFS and most of its variants.

   Do not use async or softupdates filesystems.[...]

He doesn't approve of async, he particularly doesn't approve of async on
ext2, and he doesn't even approve of async with softupdates.  (His rants
specifically against ext2 have been on mailing lists.)

I hope this isn't going to be one of those things of violently arguing
over interpretations of wording.  What Dan said on the matter is visible
on the URL-referenced Web page, mostly, and I'll be delighted to leave
it at that.

More information about the linux-elitists mailing list